IRS confesses to inappropriately targeting conservative groups.

[xBiffx]

You're still lying. Go with your strengths, I guess.

You still haven't told me why. Guess you are going with yours, name calling and the like. I can't be lying when I am quoting a guy and telling you what I think he is saying. Unless I'm lying about what I'm thinking. Good luck with that.

 

[kage69]

So the Republicans knew all a long about the investigation.
http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-informed-irs-investigation-last-125615676--abc-news-politics.html

So wait, you mean to tell me republicans are selective and opportunistic with their outrage?


lol GOP drama

 

[Bowfinger]

You still haven't told me why. Guess you are going with yours, name calling and the like. I can't be lying when I am quoting a guy and telling you what I think he is saying. Unless I'm lying about what I'm thinking. Good luck with that.

You are willfully misrepresenting the meaning of his comment. Now in fairness, that may not be intentional dishonesty on your part. A plausible alternative explanation is that you are simply too blindly partisan to think rationally. Pick whichever excuse makes you feel better.

 

[xBiffx]

You are willfully misrepresenting the meaning of his comment. Now in fairness, that may not be intentional dishonesty on your part. A plausible alternative explanation is that you are simply too blindly partisan to think rationally. Pick whichever excuse makes you feel better.

You seem to know exactly what he meant to be able to say that I am misrepresenting it. I don't know what he meant and have said as much. Only saying what I think he meant.

Keep defending a statement that you, yourself have no idea what was meant by it. Your explanation is to simply parrot back what he said, nothing more. Yet you keep telling me that my explanation is wrong and I am lying by saying what I think the man meant.

 

[monovillage]

In the 60's the authorities used police dogs and fire hoses to oppress non-violent protests, now in the 2010's the Democrats use the IRS, the BATF, OSHA and other federal authorities to oppress and intimidate their critics and protesters, to stifle opposition and to foster an atmosphere of intimidation. This is the authoritarian regime of the Democrats, progressives and the left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348756/true-scandal-jillian-kay-melchior

True Scandal
A tea-party group targeted by Democrats gets attention from the IRS—and the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF.

 

[Atreus21]

In the 60's the authorities used police dogs and fire hoses to oppress non-violent protests, now in the 2010's the Democrats use the IRS, the BATF, OSHA and other federal authorities to oppress and intimidate their critics and protesters, to stifle opposition and to foster an atmosphere of intimidation. This is the authoritarian regime of the Democrats, progressives and the left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348756/true-scandal-jillian-kay-melchior

You should post the bulk of the story.

This shit is unreal.

 

[cubby1223]

Some say this is payback for the targeting of liberal groups during Bush's administration.

We need to find some way to drop the partisanship and agree that this targeting should never happen under any circumstances.

Many say the TEA Party deserves it just because they are the TEA Party (in other words, I want my "opponent" damaged, don't care how) - but that attitude only works if you are guaranteed that someone who agrees with you on every issue is in power and always will be in power (hint: never gonna happen).

 

[xBiffx]

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...knew-of-irs-investigation-did-not-164378.html

Bet they can sell sunglasses to a blind man too.

Good to see the White House has decided to double down on the incompetency excuse.

 

[Bowfinger]

You seem to know exactly what he meant to be able to say that I am misrepresenting it. I don't know what he meant and have said as much. Only saying what I think he meant.

Keep defending a statement that you, yourself have no idea what was meant by it. Your explanation is to simply parrot back what he said, nothing more. Yet you keep telling me that my explanation is wrong and I am lying by saying what I think the man meant.

I see you're continuing your dishonesty. What part of this:

"The point, for those equally dimwitted, is that whether this was technically illegal or not, it was wrong and will not be allowed."
​

was too difficult for you?

 

[xBiffx]

I see you're continuing your dishonesty. What part of this:

"The point, for those equally dimwitted, is that whether this was technically illegal or not, it was wrong and will not be allowed."
​

was too difficult for you?

How again am I being dishonest? Still waiting.

 

[Bowfinger]

How again am I being dishonest? Still waiting.

Liar. #453.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...knew-of-irs-investigation-did-not-164378.html

Bet they can sell sunglasses to a blind man too.

Good to see the White House has decided to double down on the incompetency excuse.

You're just a fundamentally immoral person, aren't you? There is nothing in that article suggesting incompetence.

 

[nehalem256]

In the 60's the authorities used police dogs and fire hoses to oppress non-violent protests, now in the 2010's the Democrats use the IRS, the BATF, OSHA and other federal authorities to oppress and intimidate their critics and protesters, to stifle opposition and to foster an atmosphere of intimidation. This is the authoritarian regime of the Democrats, progressives and the left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348756/true-scandal-jillian-kay-melchior

I don't know why anyone should be surprised by this scandal. Attacking the non-profit status of groups they don't like is pretty much liberal ideology.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2313048&highlight=california

California lawmakers are considering taking some tax exemptions away from youth groups that do not accept gay, transgender or atheist members — a move intended to pressure the Boy Scouts of America to lift its ban on gay Scouts and troop leaders.

The only real difference between the 2 cases is how secretive, and perhaps how legal, they are.

 

[monovillage]

You're just a fundamentally immoral person, aren't you? There is nothing in that article suggesting incompetence.

It does too, it shows that members of his administration that Obama chose to be in his administration deliberately refused to notify him of investigations that affected his job, giving Obama plausible deniability for what was happening on his watch.

 

[werepossum]

In the 60's the authorities used police dogs and fire hoses to oppress non-violent protests, now in the 2010's the Democrats use the IRS, the BATF, OSHA and other federal authorities to oppress and intimidate their critics and protesters, to stifle opposition and to foster an atmosphere of intimidation. This is the authoritarian regime of the Democrats, progressives and the left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348756/true-scandal-jillian-kay-melchior

Hey, no point in building that giant, powerful government unless you can use it to destroy your political opponents.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Once Karl Rove got his purely political attack group accepted as a 501 (c)(4) "social welfare" (sic) non-profit, it opened the floodgates for hundreds of other political groups to apply for the same tax exempt status. The great majority of these groups were right-wing groups generally, with "Tea Party" groups heavily represented.

That's not true at all.

You seem to be getting your info from some very biased sources.

'Political' groups have long been organized as 501 (c)(4).

E.g. the Democratic Leadership Council: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

There are plenty of Dem 501(c)(4)'s that have been around a long time.

Rove started no trend.

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

Liar. #453.

So you think what I am saying is a misrepresentation of what the senior adviser was saying. How am I lying again? Because what I think doesn't fall in line with what you think?

 

[xBiffx]

You're just a fundamentally immoral person, aren't you? There is nothing in that article suggesting incompetence.

And you claim that I am a liar? How does any of what I say speak to morals? The excuses being rolled out can easily be interpreted as incompetence. Morals aren't part of that equation. You still haven't shown that I am lying (which I assume is the immoral part), only that I disagree with you.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's not true at all.

You seem to be getting your info from some very biased sources.

'Political' groups have long been organized as 501 (c)(4).

E.g. the Democratic Leadership Council: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

There are plenty of Dem 501(c)(4)'s that have been around a long time.

Rove started no trend.

Fern

If not, I stand corrected. It is simply a comment I've read several times, that when Rove submitted the application for his group, few expected it to be approved. When it was approved, however, it spurred other, similar groups to seek the same status. Regardless, do you dispute that the majority of new applications during this period were for right-wing groups? That's another claim I've seen several times.

 

[Fern]

If not, I stand corrected. It is simply a comment I've read several times, that when Rove submitted the application for his group, few expected it to be approved. When it was approved, however, it spurred other, similar groups to seek the same status. Regardless, do you dispute that the majority of new applications during this period were for right-wing groups? That's another claim I've seen several times.

IDK. I've seen no data on that. The IRS would have to tell us since they are the only ones who would know.

Edit: Now that I think of it seems odd the IRS would even be classifying organizations as "conservative" or "liberal". Why would they even do that? That would seem ominous if they did.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Does trail does lead straight to Obama?

This smoking gun seems to point in that direction;

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking/print



This would indicate Obama met with the head of the IRS's labor union the day before it started targeting the Tea Party.

Just a coincidence? Perhaps, but highly unlikely.

Well, this seems more good reason to move forward with an investigation. The IG report was just an audit. An audit cannot be expected to come up with the 'who, why and how' type answers.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

IDK. I've seen no data on that. The IRS would have to tell us since they are the only ones who would know.

Edit: Now that I think of it seems odd the IRS would even be classifying organizations as "conservative" or "liberal". Why would they even do that? That would seem ominous if they did.

Fern

I don't believe the IRS did classify organizations that way, nor did the Inspector General. Indeed, the IG report specifically mentions it cannot offer such a determination, though they were able to offer objective metrics based on the specific keywords used for IRS targeting. (Roughly one-third of political applications forwarded for special review contained the targeted keywords in their names, e.g., Tea Party, 9/12, etc.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Well, this seems more good reason to move forward with an investigation. The IG report was just an audit. An audit cannot be expected to come up with the 'who, why and how' type answers.

Fern

See my response above. The story is misleading. The IG report actually shows the "Tea Party" targeting started before then. The Spectator story cherry-picked one date out of the middle of a list to make it seem like there was a timing correlation.

 

[ivwshane]

That's not true at all.

You seem to be getting your info from some very biased sources.

'Political' groups have long been organized as 501 (c)(4).

E.g. the Democratic Leadership Council: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

There are plenty of Dem 501(c)(4)'s that have been around a long time.

Rove started no trend.

Fern

Yes he did. After citizens united it was rove that paved the way for political action committees whose primary goal, off the record, was politically based but with one big advantage, not having to disclose who the donors were.

 

[Fern]

Yes he did. After citizens united it was rove that paved the way for political action committees whose primary goal, off the record, was politically based but with one big advantage, not having to disclose who the donors were.

Nope.

Google 501 (c)(4) orgs. There are a crap load of political types that have been around for a long time before Rove's. I already gave you an example in the link in my post.

Fern